Posted on 03/14/2002 5:07:26 AM PST by HairOfTheDog
This is a continuation of the infamous thread New Zealander Builds Hobbit Hole originally posted on January 26, 2001 by John Farson, who at the time undoubtedly thought he had found a rather obscure article that would elicit a few replies and die out. Without knowing it, he became the founder of the Hobbit Hole. For reasons incomprehensible to some, the thread grew to over 4100 replies. It became the place for hobbits and friends of hobbits to chit chat and share LoTR news and views, hang out, and talk amongst ourselves in the comfort of familiar surroundings.
In keeping with the new posting guidelines, the thread idea is continuing here, as will the Green Dragon Inn, our more structured spin-off thread, as soon as we figure out how to move all the good discussion that has been had there. As for the Hobbit Hole, we will just start fresh, bringing only a few mathoms such as the picture above with us to make it feel like home, and perhaps a walk down memory lane:
Our discussion has been light:
It very well may be that a thread named "New Zealander builds Hobbit hole" will end up being the longest Tolkien thread of them all, with some of the best heartfelt content... Sorry John, but I would have rather it had been one with a more distinguished title!… post 252 - HairOfTheDog
However, I can still celebrate, with quiet dignity, the fact that what started as a laugh about some wacko in New Zealand has mutated and grown into a multifaceted discussion of the art, literature, and philosophy that is Tolkien. And now that I've managed to write the most pompous sentence of my entire life, I agree, Rosie… post 506 - JenB
Hah! I was number 1000!! (Elvish victory dance... wait, no; that would be too flitty) … post 1001 - BibChr
Real men don't have to be afraid of being flitty! Go for it. – post 1011 – HairOfTheDog
Seventeen years to research one mystical object seems a bit excessive… post 1007 - JenB
Okay...who's the wise guy who didn't renew Gandalf's research grant?… post 1024 – Overtaxed
To the very philosophical:
…Judas Iscariot obviously was a good man, or he wouldn't have been chosen to be one of the Apostles. He loved Jesus, like all of the Apostles, but he betrayed him. Yet without his betrayal, the Passion and Crucifixion would never have occurred, and mankind would not have been redeemed. So without his self-destruction infinite good would not have been accomplished. I certainly do not mean this to be irreverant but it seems to me that this describes the character of Gollum, in the scenes so movingly portrayed above… Lucius Cornelius Sulla
To fun but heartfelt debates about the integrity and worth of some of the characters…
…Anyone else notice how Boromir treats the hobbits? He's very fond of them but he seems to think of them as children - ruffling Frodo's hair, calls them all 'little ones'. He likes them, but I don't think he really respects them… post 1536 - JenB
Yes... Tolkien told us not to trust Boromir right off the bat when he began to laugh at Bilbo, until he realized that the Council obviously held this hobbit in high esteem. What a pompous dolt… post 1538 - HairOfTheDog
…I think almost every fault of his can be traced directly back to his blindness to anything spiritual or unseen. He considers the halflings as children, because that is what they look like. He considers the only hope of the ring to be in taking it and using it for a victory in the physical realm. He cannot see what the hobbits are truly made of, he cannot see the unseen hope of what the destruction of the ring might mean--the destruction of Sauron himself, and he cannot see the unseen danger that lies in the use of the ring itself… I just feel sorry for Boromir--he is like a blind but honorable man, trying to take the right path on the road but missing the right path entirely because he simply cannot see it… post 1548 - Penny1
Boromir isn't a jerk, he's a jock… post 2401 – Overtaxed
-----------------------------------------
Oh, I think by the time Frodo reaches the Cracks, he's not even himself anymore! I think he's not only on the brink of a dangerous place physically, he's on the brink of losing himself completely during the exchange with Gollum. But for some reason, the take-over isn't complete till he actually has to throw the Ring in. The person speaking to Gollum is not Frodo, but the "Wheel of Fire" that Sam sees. After the Ring is destroyed, Frodo not only comes back to himself, but comes back with the unbearable (to him) knowledge of what it's like to be completely without compassion. I think that's why it's so important to him to be compassionate in the Shire… post 2506 - 2Jedismom
…Regarding Frodo's compassion... it's a little too much at the end. Even Merry tells him that he's going to have to quit being so darn nice. But you're right. He's learned a lesson about evil that very few ever learn since it wasn't an external lesson but an internal one. (Those kinds of lessons have the greatest impact) Not only did he totally succumb to it, but he was rather ruthless to my little Smeagol… post 2516 - carton253
Well that Frodo was a big mean bully! (to Smeagol)… post 2519 – Overtaxed
So as you can see, everything JRR Tolkien (and Peter Jackson) is welcome here in our New Row, our soon-to-be familiar New Hobbit Hole…; philosophy, opinion, good talk and frequent silliness.
You mean our "friends?" 
No, I wouldn't say moreso than the Saudis. But, I think it will be harder to pin anything on them. The world knows Saddam is a wacko and he has no problem publicly expressing his hate for America.
What most Americans have yet to realize (or at least express) is that this is not just a war against countries and against terrorists. This is a war against Islam.
There, I've said it. Call me a right-wing-Christian-fundamentalist-extremist.
But that's what I think.
I don't think they like it as a general rule. You might freepmail the Admin Moderator, pointing out that we would be using it for the purposes of our topic, not the same function as that of the Religious Forum.
In WWII we fought in the European, South Pacific, North Pacific, and SouthEast Asian theatres simultaneously. We have a relative handfull of troops in Afganistan, and most of them are not the sort we would need in Iraq.
Not compared to me the other day!
You were a hobbit?!
What? With 15(?) of the 19 hijackers coming from Saudi, the money coming from Saudi, bin Laden coming from Saudi, what more do we need?
The world knows Saddam is a wacko and he has no problem publicly expressing his hate for America.
The loudest bully on the block isn’t necessarily the guy you should be watching out for.
What most Americans have yet to realize (or at least express) is that this is not just a war against countries and against terrorists. This is a war against Islam.
I agree. So what does that have to do with Iraq, the most secular Arab country in the Middle East?
There, I've said it. Call me a right-wing-Christian-fundamentalist-extremist.
No…..must not……say obvious……….AAHH! “You right-wing-Christian-fundamentalist-extremist!”
No, but if you take him out first, then the others will start to pay attention.
What Christians Can Learn from The Lord of the RingsFor Christian artists, entertainers, and writers desperate to engage popular culture, the success of J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is something of a curiosity.
On the one hand, Tolkien's epic saga of life in mythical Middle Earth has set a new standard for multimedia secular success. The Rings series has sold more than 100 million books; spawned legions of devoted fan clubs, conferences, and festivals; and served as the forerunner for an entire genre of fantasy literature. The first installment of the film trilogy based on Tolkien's opus, The Fellowship of the Ring, grossed more than $500 million worldwide in its first four weeks, garnered thirteen Academy Award nominations, and snagged the number two box office ranking for 2001. For every Christian who has ever wondered whether it is possible to reach broad audiences with artwork, literature, or entertainment that sprouts from a Christian worldview, Tolkien's posthumous success is a resounding answer in the affirmative.
But Tolkien's example is a complicated one for Christians. Certainly, few would dispute the sincerity of his Christian convictions. Tolkien, who died in 1973, was a devout Catholic. He practiced the faith throughout his life, frequently attended daily Mass, and facilitated the Christian conversion of his good friend and fellow Oxford don C. S. Lewis. Tolkien famously described Rings as "fundamentally religious."
A True Myth
Christians leery of black magic and sorcery may not see it that way. Tolkien's work brims with wizards, magic spells, demonic powers, and fearsome ghouls. Evil wields great power in Middle Earth, and much of Tolkien's creation is shrouded in darkness and despair. Tolkien's fans themselves have always been a curious lot. His devotees have included fellow philologists, moral conservatives, entranced children, and hippies high on LSD. Christians could be forgiven for wondering what's so Christian about Tolkien's work, and how it can be a useful model for transforming—not just appealing to—the vagaries of popular culture.
Still, Christians do defend Tolkien—often with vigor and near-religious zeal. The latest round of Rings fever has been stoked by such conservative Christian outlets as Focus on the Family, Baptist Press, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, EWTN, Our Sunday Visitor, Crisis, and the National Catholic Register. Many Christian leaders promote Rings as a richer, more palatable alternative to the Harry Potter craze, and cite the themes of Tolkien's work, as well as his personal faith, to justify their support.
In fact, Tolkien's saga of good and evil is a fundamentally Christian work. And fundamental is the key word. Rather than deliver an allegory with a clear Christ figure and thinly veiled religious exhortations, Tolkien worked for fourteen years on what he called his "true myth": a story that ushers readers into a pre-Christian world yet subtly conveys essential truths of the Christian faith. Consider this excerpt from a letter Tolkien wrote in 1953:
The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion,' to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.
Unlike Lewis, Tolkien sternly rejected allegorical readings of his work. He criticized The Chronicles of Narnia for its allegory, and is quoted as saying, "I dislike allegory when I smell it." Yet, like any thoughtful Christian writer or artist, Tolkien allowed his worldview to shape his work—not merely its characters and content but also its foundations and themes.
Quest for Holiness
In Rings, Tolkien clearly delineates good and evil and stresses the importance of individual moral choices. He makes heroes out of humble characters like Frodo and Sam, who sacrifice themselves for the greater good and carry out their duties with no reasonable hope of reward. He uses the motif of the ring to explore the seduction of power and the perils of addiction to it. His characters are fallen, susceptible to sin and desperately in need of a Savior. One—Gandalf, a wise wizard who gives his life to save his friends—apparently even resurrects from the dead, transformed by his sacrificial fall into the pit. Yet none of Tolkien's characters actually is the Savior: His myth gives us the sense that this group of humans, elves, orcs, and others stands in desperate need of divine intervention. And unlike most epics, the central quest of Rings is to surrender power, not acquire it.
Tolkien's themes never sat well with modern literary critics, who have dismissed his work as "balderdash" and "juvenile trash," in the words of American literary critic Edmund Wilson in 1956. Tolkien's choice of the fantasy genre accounted for much of the rejection by critics, who appraised his made-up languages and richly layered world of orcs, elves, and ents as children's fare. On a deeper level, many critics bristled at his stringent notions of good and evil, his nostalgia, and his reverence for tradition. Indeed, his literary themes fly in the face of a modern mindset enamored of moral relativism, technology, and progress. But they dovetail nicely with a Christian worldview that embraces moral absolutes, makes claims of universal truth, and finds meaning in tradition.
The evidence of Tolkien's Christian worldview in Rings has been amassed in great detail by such authors as Joseph Pearce in Tolkien: Man and Myth and Kurt Bruner and Jim Ware in Finding God in the Lord of the Rings. But many of today's Christian authors, screenwriters, artists, and entertainers have yet to see the connection between Tolkien's success and their own culture-transforming aspirations. Many spend their time laboring to insert a Christian character here, a stealth biblical reference there. Christian literary and film critics frequently judge movies, novels, and screenplays by the number of swear words or Christian characters they contain. Though such litmus tests may be necessary, content-heavy analyses often overshadow the worldview implications of a work. They also ignore the fact that Jesus Himself used powerful stories—not just Scripture references and outright exhortations—to convey truth.
The Power of Imagination
Tolkien's stunning secular success proves that a gripping story, even one that lacks overt Christian imagery, can leave a lasting imprint of truth. His tale is a work of pre-evangelization perfectly suited to a post-Christian culture, and it is a solid model for today's culture transformers. In Rings, Tolkien invites readers (and, in the film version, viewers) into a mythical world of stark contrasts between good and evil, right and wrong, light and darkness. Through his use of fantasy, invented languages, and mythical realms and creatures, Tolkien forces readers to check their own beliefs at the door and adopt, for a time, his worldview.
Suddenly, the same readers who would snooze through a didactic presentation of Christian morality are willing to embrace that morality in the context of Tolkien's engrossing narrative. Their imaginations are captivated and their minds are open. They will not convert overnight or without the help of a vibrant Christian community. But like the crowds who came to listen to the parables of Jesus, their attitudes can be transformed by a captivating story. And once they accept the Christian principles that underpin mythical Middle Earth, they are more likely to accept those principles in reality—and to hunger for the Savior so desperately needed in both worlds.
There! Now, discuss.
I don't think the struggle will ever be "over." There will always be a power struggle. This is different than fighting the Germans and the Japanese, because deep down there are (some) shared values. The Germans and the Japanese wanted to conquer us.
The Muslims want to eliminate us.
Suddenly, the same readers who would snooze through a didactic presentation of Christian morality are willing to embrace that morality in the context of Tolkien's engrossing narrative. Their imaginations are captivated and their minds are open. They will not convert overnight or without the help of a vibrant Christian community. But like the crowds who came to listen to the parables of Jesus, their attitudes can be transformed by a captivating story. And once they accept the Christian principles that underpin mythical Middle Earth, they are more likely to accept those principles in reality—and to hunger for the Savior so desperately needed in both worlds.
There is another writer that said something that stuck with me. "The story makes you want to be worthy of those characters, makes you want to be worthy of Middle Earth." And that is the greatest moment of all... The story does inspire personal growth, and a searching for higher truth. And so yes, it does leave us more hungry for salvation.
I believe it is a window to the true nature of God. The work of Christians, if they wish to use it as a springboard, is to build on that basic inspiration in a way that is as beautiful as the vision.
I still agree.
However, I think we should be focusing on Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. What will get the message to the Muslims faster, bom-bing Babylon, er, Baghdad or bom-bing Mecca and Medina?
I certainly have. I'm trying to reconcile the Christian response. But I keep going back to that Old Testament reference where God said to Saul, "Kill 'em. Kill 'em all."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.